If you have a complaint, go see our Complaint Manager, Helen Wait. That's right...go to Helen Wait.

Imagine this:  You decide you want a new flat-screen TV.  You're in Walmart and you notice they have a nice 75" Samsung priced for less than $1700, and they offer LAYAWAY.  Woohoo!  So you go to the service desk, fill out the paperwork, and make a down payment.  Every month you stop in and make a payment, and in mid-December you go in to make your final payment and pick up your new TV.  But instead of your expected 75" Samsung, they bring out this and hand it to you:

"Whoa!  No...no...this is NOT what I paid for" you say. 

"Sorry sir, but Walmart has realized they under-priced the TV they promised you, and this is all they'll be able to deliver for what you paid."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This, with little exaggeration, is where Social Security and Medicare are headed.  From the time you began your working career back in 19__ you have been putting money every payday into the Social Security Trust Fund, and Medicare via the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.  But the closer you get to receiving the social benefits you've already paid for, you'll hear "Oooo, sorry, but we may not be able to deliver what we've promised you."
 
Earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office issued their projection for the Federal budget deficit from now through 2028.  They say it will actually amount to $11.7 TRILLION DOLLARS ($1.6T more than they forecast just this past June).  That's a deficit of well over A TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, even after figuring in the increased economic growth that was supposed to make up for the tax cut shortfall.

Why so much?  Mainly for two reasons:  1, more people are reaching Social Security and Medicare age, resulting in more tax dollars being spent on those social programs; and 2, yes, reduced revenue to the Treasury due to last year's tax cut.   

You can't tell me Congress didn't see this coming when they voted a TRILLION dollar tax cut last year.  With all the data they had available they should have had no trouble projecting things like this 20 years ago.  But instead of adjusting taxes in anticipation of what was to come, they just kicked the can down the road for fear of losing votes right then.

Soon-to-retire House Speaker Paul Ryan has for years been the chief proponent of both cutting taxes and "reforming" Social Security and Medicare to make them more "sustainable"....that's the code word for "cutting benefits".  The two front-runners to replace him as Speaker are Congressman Kevin McCarthy and Congressman Steve Scalise (assuming Republican's keep control of the House of Representatives), both of whom share Ryan's vision.

But not to worry, they say those Americans now at or very near retirement age wouldn't be affected by any "sustainability" cuts.  Keep in mind these are the same folks who said all our money would be there for us when we retired, too. (Hmmm...could this be the impetus behind gun control?  Nothing scarier than a bunch of pissed off seniors running around with guns, right?)  *chuckle*

Just don't act surprised when, not if, it happens.

S

Follow the money

The Senate is currently on their third....or is it their fourth or fifth....iteration of a "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" attempt, and this one is no better than the ones that came before it.  As bad as ObamaCare supposedly is, all their attempts to date have been giant steps BACKWARD.  The highlight of the current Republican bill is to give each state a "block grant", essentially a pot of cash, and then tell them to figure out what to do with health care.  "Not my circus, not my monkey" the Feds can then say.

Polls show less than 20% of Americans like this giant step backwards.  Neither does AARP, or the American Medical Association, or the various hospital associations, or the insurers, or the drug makers, or the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, the Diabetes Foundation, or any other group advocating on behalf of people with health issues.  So why are Republicans so hellbent on ramming this "reform" down our throats?  Who wins in this deal?

FOLLOW THE MONEY

The only logical explanation I can come up with is that, to Republicans, "Repeal and Replace ObamaCare" is simply a means to a greater goal.  They have told their ultra-wealthy mega-donors that they will deliver to them a giant tax cut, but before they can do that, they first have to come up with a pile of cash from somewhere.  That "somewhere", they have decreed, will be from the Federal healthcare kitty....cut a few hundred billion here, transfer it on to there.  But if they can't realize big savings via a repeal/replace bill, their promised wealth transfer, their REAL goal, is dead in the water.  

If you can think of another reason why congressional Republicans are pushing so hard to pass such a supremely unpopular bill, please let me know.

If they should ever succeed in achieving this goal, hold on!  Their next target will be Medicare and Social Security.  Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has already (correctly) labeled them as the two most expensive Federal programs that can be looted...er..."reformed" in order to realize great savings.  He just never tells us where those savings will go.

So, as is always the case, FOLLOW THE MONEY.  That will show you who is pulling the strings, and who the big winner will always be.

S

Do I dare hope...could something good be happening?

These are not congressmen working together.  This is just a generic photo.  There is word that a group of Democrats and Republicans are working quietly together, but there are no cameras there to record it.

Word is leaking out that a group of congressmen from both parties are quietly meeting together to try and find a way to at least stabilize the troubled health insurance market.  Our non-Leader, President Donald Trump, miffed that his preferred health insurance reform package failed in the Senate, has vowed to just let the market collapse, in effect saying "f__k the people if they lose what little insurance they might have. I don't care."  These congressmen are actually, hopefully, doing something positive and not just posing.

I'm sure House Leaders Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Leaders Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, are miffed that some of their members aren't toeing their parties "my way or the highway" line, too.  These renegades are stealing their Leader's thunder.

What's missing from this picture?  Bright lights and TV cameras.  The Donald and Mitch and Paul and Chuck and Nancy just LOVE to step in front of a TV camera and bloviate about how only THEY can fix _____.  They'll tell you their way is the only way, which is why we're in the mess we are today.

Kudos to these fearless congressmen who are willing to tell their Leadership to get out of the way.  May they lock themselves in a quiet room, bring in a platter of sandwiches and some beverages, and haggle until they can come up with something, not necessarily exactly what they would prefer, but something they and we can all live with.  And for Pete's sake, don't let a TV camera get within a mile of them!

S

Another "tail wags dog" story?

 

In the recent news I've heard many say that Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski "betrayed their party" by voting against the recent Republican healthcare replacement bill. I find that statement shocking and disappointing. 

Should you vote for your congressman or Senator to go to Washington and vote how Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell (if they are a Republican) or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer (if they are a Democrat) tells them to, or should you vote to send them to Washington to represent YOU and YOUR interests? And if your interest sometimes differs with whatever their party leader wants, who should they owe their allegiance to?

Go do WHAT to myself? HOW DARE YOU!

So the Tea Party wants a new healthcare plan, and they seem to be pinning their entire case on allowing insurance companies to do business across state lines.  Right now, to my knowledge, each state has its own Dept. of Insurance that regulates the companies doing business there.  Fifty states, 50 Departments of Insurance.  

It's common for one or two health insurers in each state to control 50, 60, even 80% of the market.  The GOPers (Gophers?  *snicker*) think removing the state-to-state barrier will open up the market to much more competition, bringing rates down.  What I want to know is, why didn't we do this years ago?  Who is opposed to more competition?  Oops....I think I just answered my own question.  I can only think of two groups who would object:  The various State Departments of Insurance, and the insurance companies.  

Bureaucrats by definition like bureaucracy.  They just loooove to have more forms, more rules, more audits, and more papers to shuffle from "in" to "out".  It's their job security.  And the Chairman at each State Dept. of Insurance sees his department as his personal fiefdom.  The more people he's over, the larger his department, the more prestige he enjoys, and the larger the salary he can justify asking for.  There's obstacle #1.

And the health insurers no doubt just loooove it when they can have a HUGE market share in a state.  They can say "jump", and the doctors, hospitals, etc have no choice but to answer, "how high?"  When the insurers hold all the cards, they can control the game.  They can decide what is and isn't covered, how much they will pay for each procedure, etc, and the doctors and hospitals have little choice but to fall in line.  There's obstacle #2.

So if it's a good idea, why must we associate this increased "open market" ONLY with the new Tea Party/Ryan/Trump plan?  Why couldn't it apply to a new, improved ACA 2.0, or ScottCare, or whatever?  Why can't the Democrats and Republicans band together (for once) and just slap the ever-lovin' crap out of the (state insurance) bureaucrats and the insurance companies?  The bureaucrats can clean out their desks and go home, and the insurance companies can be told,  "NO MORE!  This is how it's gonna be from now on.  Y'all get lean, learn the definition of "customer service", and never forget....YOU work for US!  We have choices!"

Is there anyone else who has a motive to keep the system we have now?  Am I missing anything?

Like I've always said....no one has a monopoly on good ideas.  Open the market to more competition and let's see what happens, even if the Tea Party/Ryan/Trump plan dies en route.

S

Next you'll want me to pick tonight's World Series winner, right?

If Carnac The Magnificent did politics....

Time for some rank amateur, next-to-worthless political prognostication from yours truly.  The US Presidential / Congressional elections are exactly one week away, The Donald is still groping women out in his bus according to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary is already taking reservations from her Banker buddies...cha ching...for overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom according to Donald Trump.  For us the choice is simple: Would you rather die from a venereal disease or a stab in the back?

My timeline:  If Donald Trump wins we'll see some almost immediate riots / civil unrest, primarily in the inner cities where minorities will see his election as the first step to rolling back their civil rights.  That won't happen, of course, but that will be their perception.

If Hillary Clinton wins there will be civil unrest, too, primarily from those who suspect she will immediately start to work abridging their Second Amendment rights. That won't happen, of course, but that will be their perception. 

And Carnac saaaaaays....Hillary Clinton by a nose.

The House of Representatives will stay in the hands of the Republican Party, but that Party will be in total chaos.  The only organized faction of the surviving GOP will be the Brown Shirts...er...the Tea Party.  Their agenda item #1; wrestle the Speakers gavel away from Paul Ryan and pass it to one of their knuckle draggers.  Agenda item #2; begin setting up special investigation units to see what misdeeds they can pin on President Hillary Clinton.  She will prove to be a "target rich environment".

The Senate races are a tough call.  I suspect the Republicans will keep their majority standing, but only barely.  If they do, nothing their archnemesis Hillary Clinton requests will ever get a committee hearing, much less a Senate floor vote.  The Supreme Court, already one member short, will likely stay that way (or get worse as more vacancies open up due to the old-timers there now clocking out).  Republicans (Tea Party members or those intimidated by the Tea Party, which is all the rest of 'em) will never vote for a nominee they feel might overturn Roe v Wade or Citizens United, upset the Second Amendment status quo, etc.

The economy will turn south, more than anything because we've been on a winning streak for a historically long time and are due a correction.  Hillary won't notice because she'll be too busy shaking down The One Percent.  She will get blamed for the recession, as Presidents always are, and her approval rating will plummet. 

The House Tea Party will initiate an impeachment hearing against President Clinton, and will vote "aye" 20 minutes later.  They know there is no way the Senate will vote by a 2/3 majority to convict her, but that's OK with them.  They just have a sharp stick and they want to poke it in her eye.  It will be the centerpiece event of their Annual Summer Family Picnic.

For the next six months the news will revolve around nothing more than the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.  We might get a few days of "other" news following a terrorist attack somewhere, or if California goes missing after an earthquake, but that's about it. 

In the interim, while we're busy lobbing stink bombs at each other, the banks will quietly continue their march to complete domination of us all, the insurance companies will continue to merge, first into the Big Eight, then the Big Four, and finally the Big One.  Same with Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.

OR

We'll grow some balls, round up all the above mentioned "deplorables", and ship them all off to a newly renovated (kidding) and restocked (with bread and water) Alcatraz.

Now, is that a happy ending or what?  :) 

S

Where have all the Good Guys gone?

Does anyone remember these two guys?  That's President Ronald Reagan on the right (naturally) and House Speaker Tip O'Neal on the left (both literally and figuratively).  

Mr. Conservative and Mr. Liberal they were.  They had sharply different political philosophies, visions for the future, and constituencies, yet they also had respect for each other.  When one had the opportunity to completely crush the other, to politically destroy the other, he didn't do it.  They realized they needed each other.  

Sometimes Tip had to swallow hard and give in to something Reagan wanted, and sometimes their roles were reversed.  They both knew they couldn't just dump on a large part of the American population in order to get their way.  That would be what is called "winning the battle, but losing the war"....a long-term bad thing for the country, and they knew it.

Contrast them to the "leaders" (more like "hired guns") that we have today.  Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, Ryan, Clinton, and lets not forget the Tea Party faction led by Ted Cruz....they would rather eat s__t than give an inch to the other.  The Republicans, for example, recently agreed to a budget deal only because elections are upcoming and they knew polls showed the public held them responsible for past government shutdowns that harmed millions of people.  It was self-preservation, pure and simple.

They gave in not for the good of the country, but for their own political gain.  And under similar circumstances the Democrats would do the same.  They care about themselves, and no one else.  You and I are just pawns to them.

Bernie Sanders is saying a political revolution is coming, and he may be right.  I'm wondering if it will be limited to just being "political"?  Think about that.

S

A train wreck in not-so-slow-motion

For the life of me I don't understand why so many in the world look to the United States for leadership.  We wouldn't know "leadership" if it bit us on the butt!  There may be a very few potential "leaders" lurking in our political landscape, but they either have no chance of getting the nod to lead, or THEY DON'T WANT IT!

It wasn't long ago I was pooh-pooing the "Young Guns" in the House of Representatives, those being Republicans Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Kevin McCarthy, their best-of-the-best.  Yes, the same Kevin McCarthy who just dropped out of the race to become the next Speaker of the House.  Back then I thought they were too rigid, too my-way-or-the-highway, too cold to effectively lead.  

Turns out McCarthy is now deemed not cold enough to please the 40 or so members of the Tea Party (now calling themselves the Freedom Party) who are bullying the rest of the Republican's.  They're like the Nazi Brown Shirts of the 1930's, sans the actual physical beating of opponents.  Current Speaker John Boner is looking like an absolute moderate.  Don't get cocky Democrats, you're no better.  Nancy Pelosi?  Really?  She's the best you have?

And the Senate....Oh dear God, we've hit bottom!  Mitch McConnell (R)?  Harry Reid (D)?  The Mafia should study them to learn the fine art of real organized crime.

Which leaves President Barack Obama.   Sir, please explain it to me again, slowly....what exactly is our foreign policy?  If it's to get run over, then I give you a perfect 10.  You say we're involved in Syria in order to help send Assad packing.  So who's going to take his place?  One of those flea-bag rebel warlords we're supporting now?  You know they're just suckering you, right?  They don't give a rats ass about working with us.  In fact they hate us.  They'll still take our money, but they hate us.  Why can't they hate us on their dime?

And who do we have in the wings?  Donald Trump, entertainer extraordinaire.  Dr Ben Carson, has no chance.  Carly Fiorina, ditto.  Ted Cruz, pond scum.  And a bunch of others who have less than no chance.  Hillary, too many skeletons in the closet.  Bernie Sanders, even his supporters say he could never be elected.  

*crickets*

What the hell has happened to us?  Our potential is limitless, our people incredibly dynamic.  Our compassion (excluding the Freedom Party) comforting, our power to do good beyond the reach of anyone else in the world.  And we're squandering it.  DOH!

You know that revolution we haven't had in 239 years?  Don't look now, but....

S

We sure could use Pat Paulsen right now (look it up)

Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you a man with no heart.  Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you a man with no brains. ~~Winston Churchill

Whoa!  Last night Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, the #2 guy in the House of Representatives, was defeated in his Virginia district primary race.  This is both good news and bad news.

Cantor was one of the Republican "Young Guns" along with Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, a small group of virtually inflexible super conservatives who, IMO, were preventing our government from "governing".  Think "government shutdown".  He'll be gone after the first of the new year.  That's the good news.

The bad news is that the guy who defeated him is even MORE inflexible, as in absolutely rigid.  He's a Tea Party fave and one of those "my way or the highway" kinda people.  If enough people like him are elected our political polarization, our gridlock, will get even worse.  Sales of pitchforks and torches will surge.

While the Tea Party has been swatted down in many primary races so far this year, this was a BIG win for them.  As a student of politics (among other things) this intrigues me.  It's going to make for a fascinating fall election.

I'm tickled by all the fuss over whether Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2016.  My first prediction: She might run, but she won't even get her party's nomination.

She'll be in the headlines all right, and might win some early primaries, but her party will eventually realize she's a lightning rod.  

Her fans love her, but her foes are reviled by her.  That's not a recipe for winning an election.  She comes with a lot of baggage....I'm guessing even more than most politicians.  There's gonna be lots of mud (shit?) slinging.

Get one of her bumper stickers and buttons as soon as you can 'cause they will some day be political novelties.

I'll add Hillary's to my collection.  :)

S

This is gonna be fun!

As a bystander who views politicians with contempt, it's going be fun for me to watch as the Republican Party devours itself this election year.  *Chomp...Chomp!*

The Republican establishment has actually uttered out loud that they would "destroy the Tea Party", while Ted Cruz & Company still feel they have the upper hand and are challenging numerous old school Republicans at the primary level.

Umm....what's that expression?

Screw modesty.  I've gotta blow my own horn:  TOLD YA!

Extremists, at ether end of the political spectrum, are losers.  The Democrats had their crash and burn moment back in the 1980's, and now the Republicans are having theirs.  

After that earlier Democratic fiasco we had a period of relatively smooth (in retrospect) sailing.  Looks like it's again time to add a little chlorine to the gene pool.

The catalyst for this post?  Tea Party darling Sarah Palin has called fellow Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget "the definition of insanity" and a "joke".  The brainiac of the Republican Party?  Insane?  Ouch!

Popcorn....I'm gonna need more popcorn.  :)

S

This could be bad news....

There is an email going around that says a coup is underway to oust John Boehner as Speaker of the House and replace him with Paul Ryan.  (Hmmm...I actually thought it would be Eric Cantor who would lead the revolt.)  I'm no big fan of John Boehner, but I feel like he would be someone who could/would negotiate with the Democrats.  

Paul Ryan is a headline-grabbing "my way or the highway" kinda guy.   Bad move, Republicans!  The Tea Party-ers apparently didn't get the message:  The People have repudiated extreme politics.  They want our leaders to work together to get something done and not throw us all under the bus.  

My concern is that if this is true and Ryan (or Cantor) does become Speaker, we're going over the "fiscal cliff" next year.  Sequestration (across-the-board spending cuts) will automatically kick in, cutting not only fat from government (good) but meat, too (bad).  And we can ALL see our paychecks reduced when the "Bush tax cuts" expire and we go back to our previous tax rates.  Ouch!  Ryan has said, and I believe him, that he will NEVER allow taxes to go up on the wealthy.  

"If my friends can't get their tax cut, then none of you can, either."

Ryan says the wealthy are the "job creators", which is a half-truth at best.  While the wealthy might be "incubators" of new businesses, they depend on middle class consumers to actually buy whatever the new businesses are selling in order to succeed.  If the middle-class has their take-home pay reduced due to higher taxes, they'll buy less.  New businesses will stagnate or even fail, perhaps taking us into another recession.  How would that create any new jobs?

Whatever the two sides can negotiate regarding tax rates for the wealthy, so be it, but don't hold the middle class hostage in the process.  The election is over.  Now we need leaders, not ideologues.

S

Last minute election thoughts

I feel like I'm watching a really interesting football game, with every offensive thrust countered with a defensive parry.  Momentum has changed, subtle adjustments have been made, and a bit of luck has been thrown in, too.  It will likely be a field goal as the clock expires that will give us a winner.  Except this isn't a game.  This is much more serious.  This could conceivably change the way our country is governed for decades to come.  I'm talking about tomorrow's presidential and congressional elections.

Here's what has been bugging me for months now:  Mitt Romney's choice of running mate.  I've always thought of Romney as a moderate, but in the primaries he recited loud and often the Tea Party line, which scared the bejeebers out of me.  At the first debate Mitt did a complete 180, coming across as a moderate, and his fortunes improved immediately afterwards.  I'm hoping the "new" Mitt is the "real" Mitt, but in the background he's still there....his running mate, Paul Ryan, and I wonder. 

Be very afraid...the Young Gun leadership (L-R, Reps. Kevin McCarthy, Eric Cantor, and Paul Ryan)

Ryan is a proud member...a leader, even...of the Young Guns, a group of extremist, ultra-conservative Republicans who want to gain control of, first, their party, and then the country.  They have demonstrated they are willing to throw the entire country under the bus* as long as it will hasten their power grab.  (Suggested reading:  Do Not Ask What Good We Do:  Inside the US House of Representatives by Robert Draper.)  

They practice the concept of the more they can do to paralyze the country (by their obstruction) and discredit their opponents, the worse things will get and the sooner The People will turn to them to fix things.  The pain the rest of us must endure in the process is of apparently no concern to them.  To them the end justifies the means.  I agree there are lots of things that need changing, but IMO the changes need to be made thoughtfully with a scalpel, not with an ulterior motive and a meat cleaver.  All these guys have are meat cleavers.

Now I read that Paul Ryan, "quiet for now, is planning for an active role" as Romney's VP.  "...if the Republican ticket prevails, Mr. Ryan plans to come back roaring, establishing an activist vice presidency that he said would look like Dick Cheney's under President George W. Bush."  (There are to this day many loyal, moderate Republicans who cringe at that thought!)  He says he will "reach out" (to Democrats) across the aisle.  (Riiight...and pigs will fly south for the winter.  It's just not the way the Young Guns do business.)

I just hope that if Mitt Romney should win he governs like the responsible moderate our country needs, and not like a "slash and burn" Young Gun.  And as for Paul Ryan, "Vice Presidents should be seen (at funerals of foreign dignitaries) and not heard."

If you disagree, that's fine.  Just be glad we live in America where we're all free to express ourselves however we like.  :)

S

*The current budget "sequestration" mess and past (and future?) budget impasses...the work of the Young Guns.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."...T Roosevelt

Isn't tonight's presidential debate supposed to be the one that concentrates on foreign policy?  If so, let me give you a sneak preview of what to expect:  Ours sucks.

This isn't really news.  Our foreign policy has been retarded as far back as I can remember.   Bay of Pigs?  Vietnam?  All of the wasted years we've spent trying to bring "peace" to the Mid-east?  Now Libya and Syria?  Our government is simply inept.  This isn't just the Obama administration's bungling.  This goes back decades.

Right now Mitt Romney and Eddie Munster Paul Ryan are saying Obama botched protecting our diplomats in Libya, resulting in their deaths.  What an obvious political ploy.  Shame on them!

Here are the facts Mitt:  Congress....that would be the Republican controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate, voted to CUT the funds for embassy protection around the world.  (I believe I heard the number was $300M they cut.)  We need to curb spending....I get it....but don't act surprised when we cut past the fat, through the meat, and into the bone, then it hits the fan because all we can afford are local hired guns to protect our diplomats.  They're worthless!  (Wonder if President Mitt would agree to cut HIS Secret Service detail when traveling overseas and rely on "locals"?)

Didn't I read that at about that same time we "requested" permission from the Sudanese to bring in US military personnel to safeguard our embassy in Khartoum, and they rejected it?  So much for political correctness.  We should have said, "We're bringing in OUR people to protect OUR embassy.  If you object, we're bringing our diplomats home, and they're bringing OUR CHECKBOOK with them."  Then I'll bet they couldn't have said 'approved' fast enough!

Forget about niceties in the Mid-east.  It's lost on them.  Just lay it out there.

(Hey, I'm retired.  I have the time.  I could take over and fix things if they'll just call me.)

S

I didn't see THAT coming!

  
I think like many people I watched the Veep debate last night expecting to see a personable Joe Biden yap and on que say something funny that Saturday Night Live can take and make into a hilarious skit.  That SNL skit may still happen, but what I actually witnessed was an informed, powerful, very combative, stand-his-ground candidate Biden.

Specifically, here's what I saw:  Biden probably said the words "middle class" 20 times.  Same with "level playing field", and "a fair shake".  He came across as the populist defender of The People, something I think will play well with blue-collar voters.   And what is THE most critical state still in play?  Ohio....gritty, blue-collar Ohio.  Eighteen electoral vote Ohio.

Biden got so worked up on several occasions I fully expected to see him start foaming at the mouth.  But again, that much passion is probably appreciated by the blue-collar types.  Just go into a bar in Ohio and bring up Michigan, or vice versa.  You'll see lots of "mouth foaming"!

And Biden had something for war-weary voters, too, when he promised we would be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  "Sure, the Afghans would be happy to let us keep doing their fighting for them forever.  That's why we put them on notice.  'You'd better be ready to defend YOUR country come 2014.'" I think that struck a popular chord and will be well received.

In this case at least I think Biden's age and experience trumped Ryan's youth and vigor.  How could Ryan compete with Biden's "I was right there with Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil (and a bottle of scotch?) during their epic budget battles"?  Or, "I was on an hour-long conference call with Bibi Netanyahu (Israeli PM) and the President and we're all in complete agreement...." 

I think that "complete agreement with Israel" reference probably reassured the Jewish community, too.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Florida have a sizable Jewish community?  Twenty nine electoral vote Florida.  Smooth.

Paul Ryan is a numbers man; a budget, Medicare and Social Security expert.  While very important stuff, it's also very boring to talk about.  It's all based on "projections" and "assumptions", and with accounting being such a fraudulent practice today, can easily be refuted.  It's a "He said, She said" argument that politicians have been throwing at us for so long they're hardly believable any more.   "Projections" are a tough sell.

Most awkward exchange:  Ryan sharing Gov. Romney's compassion for a family who had suffered through a horrible car crash, while Biden explained he WAS the family that suffered through a horrible car crash.  OUCH!

Best zingers:  When Ryan mentioned that Jack Kennedy cut taxes, Biden chimed in, "Oh, so now you're Jack Kennedy?"  Also, when Ryan explained how Romney mis-spoke when talking about the 47% quip, saying, "I'm sure you know what it's like to have your words come out not the way you meant for them to."  Haha!

While the red states are still red and the blue states are still blue, I think Joe Biden's performance probably picked up quite a few net votes for the Democrats.  This is going to make for an interesting finish come November.

S

My two bits.....

The first Presidential Debate is in the can.  Time to compare notes:

IMO, Mitt Romney came across as cool, collected, and very well prepared.  It was like he knew the questions before they were asked, which of course he didn't.  Kudos.  He was aggressive, didn't have any odd mannerisms, didn't twitch, sigh, roll his eyes, etc.  He addressed his remarks towards the President.

IMO, President Obama seemed to have been caught flat-footed and often fumbled with how to respond to Romney's jabs.  He was definitely on the defensive.  He didn't seem to be as well prepared.  He looked down or nervously towards someone (Michelle?) in the audience.  He had way too many long pauses and "Ahhhh's".

But the curve ball I noticed most was, who REALLY is Mitt Romney?  I've said for months he was making a BIG mistake by pandering to ultra-right-wing Tea Party conservatives.  He had their votes automatically by default.  It will be the moderates who will be the deciding factor in this election. THEY are the ones he has to win over.

Tonight he talked straight to those moderates.  Very smart politics....but very much at odds with what he's been saying before now.  Example?  He said he would give everyone a tax deduction basket with a specific dollar amount cap.  Taxpayers could fill it with anything they wanted from a list of possible choices UP TO THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT.  He specifically said the wealthy would top off their deduction basket early, and that's it.  They would lose almost all of their current deductions.  There's no way in hell the Tea Party would have smiled on that idea! 

In other words they (the rich) would see their taxes go WAY up.  That is NOT what he's been saying for the last year.  If he had offered that before now Obama would have jumped all over it enthusiastically!

Another example?  In his closing remarks he said as Massachusetts's governor he worked well with a legislature made up 80% by Democrats.  As President he would sit down with Democrats in Congress and find common ground with them for the good of the American people.

That is definitely NOT what he's been intimating to the Tea Party crowd.  If he really felt that way, why would he choose Paul Ryan as his running mate?  Ryan, along with congressional Republican Young Gun leaders like Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy, have been notoriously uncompromising.  They are the main reason this Congress is gridlocked.  It's "their way or the highway".  I'm sure Paul Ryan cringed when he heard his potential boss say he would sit and sing Kum-ba-yah with the Democrats.

So was the Mitt Romney that I saw tonight, the moderate, the REAL Mitt Romney, or was tonight's Mitt Romney just a poser?

It's gonna be an interesting finish.

That's my two bits.

S

I believe I hear the fat woman singing....

....and I don't think Mitt Romney likes what he's hearing.

Various polls are now saying Willard "the Mitt" Romney is losing ground in the few critical up-for-grab states that are going to decide who will be our next President.  Sure, there are numerous things that could turn his campaign around, but as I see it, they are all outside his control.

Brick Obama could have a brain fart during the debates, but I think he's too smart for that.  Israel could turn Tehran into a smoking hole, causing them to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Gas goes up to $8 a gallon, and Obama could be sending out resumes.  Who knows?  Unemployment could take a huge leap up, but with holiday hiring now kicking off, that doesn't seem likely. 

So where did Romney go wrong?  As I've said for months, most Americans don't want an "extreme" candidate from either end of the spectrum.  Remember the extremely liberal Democratic Party of the 1980's?  The Republican's ultra-conservative Tea Party of today is that far to the right.  Many middle-class mature voters are turned off by those types.  Why didn't Mitt move towards the center?  

Instead he picked lightning rod Paul Ryan for a running mate, IMO a bad mistake.  Seniors see him as the guy who's gonna mess with their Medicare and Social Security.  Even though Ryan said nothing for them would change, seniors don't believe him.  It's sort of like how, when one company buys another, they always say, "No operational changes are expected."  

Yeah, right.  Six months later divisions have been sold-off, pensions and health care have been overhauled for the worse, and a few more pink slips are passed out every Friday.  That's how many seniors see Paul Ryan.  And just coincidentally, battle-ground states Ohio and Florida are loaded with seniors.

And the "47%" quip, the "my wife has two Cadillacs", and the "I don't know anything about NASCAR but several of my friends own teams" hasn't exactly made folks want to invite Mitt and Ann over for hot dogs and a friendly game of backyard horse shoes.  There's just no "warm fuzzy".

Nope, I don't think Mitt Romney has enough time left to distance himself from the Tea Party "Young Guns" and reinvent himself as a moderate (that he probably really is).  I guess we can read the expert's election post mortem three months from now and see if my analysis was on target or not.  One thing no one can argue with is this has been a ridiculously expensive, nasty election.  Can you imagine the free-for-all in 2016?

S

The "Pelosi-Ryan" connection

Yesterday on the news I saw GOP Veep candidate Paul Ryan trying to explain why Mitt Romney won't divulge any specific tax loopholes he would close or what tax rates he would set if he's elected.  They're being vague, he said, "....because we want to get it done."  He went on to say, "We don't want to presume to say, 'Here's exactly our way or the highway, take it or leave it Congress.'"  Huh?

Ummm, Paul....that's exactly what the Tea Party "Young Guns" have been saying since they got to Congress:  "Here's what we demand, take it or leave it."  No compromise, no way.

And didn't the Republicans lambaste then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her quip during the debate over health care reform when she said, "We'll just have to pass this bill so you can see what's in it"? 

Aren't Romney and Ryan doing the same thing, in essence saying, "You'll just have to vote for us so you can see what were going to do with your taxes"? 

One of my favorite old sayings is, "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."  Looking around Washington today I see lot's of "problems" and very few "solutions".  

Even though you might have some potential solutions, unless you're willing to work with others, you have nothing.  Therefore you're still a "problem".

Whenever politicians, any politicians, try to fluff me off by just saying "trust me and I'll fix everything",  I immediately grab my wallet and back myself into a corner, 'cause I'm fixin' to either get robbed or screwed....quite likely both.

S

WHAT was he thinking??

Can anyone explain to me Mitt Romney's grand strategy in choosing Paul Ryan as a running mate?  If he has one at all it baffles me.  All he did was solidify those conservative / Tea Party folks who were going to vote for him anyway.  He might now be able to bring in Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, but it will probably cost him Florida and several other states with large senior populations.

And politicians usually like to talk in vague, opaque language, giving out as few details as possible so the opposition will have a difficult time pinning them down with specifics to pound on.  Not this time!  Ryan has a detailed, articulate budget plan that will be a lightning rod issue.  Again, those who were already going to vote conservative will, while those who weren't still won't.  But now many of those absolutely vital moderate swing voters, many of them elderly, will have reason (Medicare / Social Security) to vote Democratic.  You just don't make the elderly's Medicare or Social Security benefits the centerpiece of a campaign, especially if it is to "reform" it.

This violates all rules of general elections.  You appeal to your core supporters in the primaries, and then move towards the middle when appealing to the larger population.  Just watch....Obama will appeal to the moderates with reassuring words while criticizing Romney as an extremist, and Romney will have to distance himself from his own Veep's controversial budget plan.  He should have brought Ryan on board later after the election (if he won) as a cabinet member.  

This is just bizarre.

S